Thousands Of Americans Are Fleeing The Big Cities

San Francisco has the smallest number of children of any big city in America. People with families do flee here because of the cost of housing and you're not guaranteed good public schools.

We always get into racial divisions in this country but Cypress' post shows class divisions. I hear what he said all the time living here. SF has huge economic inequality yet it's easy for us to thumb our nose at anyone who isn't as "sophisticated".
Well with hicks like you living there no wonder! ;)
 
well it's a big city. Florida isn't know for it's culture. it's too new , too geared to turistas to support it..

On the other hand if I had to move back to culturally rich/urban blight Baltimore.....well W.C. Fields said something regarding Philly..
Yea...Baltimore hardly inspires. I doubt they ever write songs or epic poems about Columbus but it is a congenial place to live.
 
I didn't read the OP because it's infowars. It is factually correct that many are leaving cities as the article I posted on SF shows as well as we know certain cities have been losing population.

I didn't read it because the OP title was nothing but a racist meme of yore, but thanks for giving me another reason not to.
 
I love Infowars. It gets pretty alarmist at times, but there are lots of kernels of truth even in those reports.

This article, for example, is right in line with other publications reporting on the same subject.

What other articles have you read that offer this same tone in cities? I live in a city and as a real estate investor who does a lot of research on cities in the country so I follow the demographic trends that are occurring. Certain cities have been hemmeroging population for awhile, that is not new. That but there has been a massive move back to the cities over the past decade. Basically the reversal of white flight that occurred before. But this time it's the middle class and poor being forced out, with a good number being minorities.
 
I've lived in all three and found them congenial with each having its pros and cons. In suburban life one of the major cons is that community and social life blows chunks.

Social life sucks, but community life is the best of all. Where else does anyone show-up at a city council, town hall, school board, public works, or church parish meeting? Where else can you find an epic HOA flamewar? Now, if you are a regular at the local sports bar, then your social life can be okay...
 
Yea...Baltimore hardly inspires. I doubt they ever write songs or epic poems about Columbus but it is a congenial place to live.
it was a really cool place back in the 60's and 70's.
ever had it own underground newspaper. PJ O'Rourke started his writing career there
 
I'm going to revise my statement, thanks to Comrade Watermarx here:

The suburbs are the ONLY place to be; the only place worth living. Urban centres are great for the nightlife and gawking. Rural places are great for day trips and speeding. Secluded places are great for sightseeing, offroading, and camping. But, who really wants to live in those fucking places? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

I actually live in a suburb.
 
The suburbs of Baltimore are much better than the inner city. The crime rate here is actually lower than the small town in Mississippi I came from.

DC was horrible but it's gotten a lot better. Whereas Baltimore has pretty much stayed the same. Arlington and the inner federal core of DC are beautiful places.
 
I would be careful about marginalizing rural and small town life. They have their perks too. Such as less stress, community involvement, less crime, pollution, slower pace of life, out door activities, etc.

No, you are right.
I actually like the best of both words. A university town, that has a highly educated population and cultural amenities, but not the population, traffic and congestion associated with a large city. My number one criteria is actually natural beauty and climate. But I have to have culture too, which is why something like Hazard County, Georgia is totally off limits for me!
 
Last edited:
The suburbs of Baltimore are much better than the inner city. The crime rate here is actually lower than the small town in Mississippi I came from.

DC was horrible but it's gotten a lot better. Whereas Baltimore has pretty much stayed the same. Arlington and the inner federal core of DC are beautiful places.

I don't know whether I'd rather live nearer to DC or Baltimore. I guess DC has the sights to see, and Baltimore is just a failing, rundown city. If it were 20 years ago, I might pick Baltimore.
 
No, you are right.
I actually like the best of both words. A university town, that has a highly educated population and cultural amenities, but not the population, traffic and congestion associated with a large city. My number one criteria is actually natural beauty and climate. But I have to have culture too, which is why something like Hazard County, Georgia is totally off limits for me!

Davis isn't exactly a happening spot (not saying it's a bad place either) nor is/was Sacramento jumping (although growing with the Kings and people leaving the Bay to live there)
 
No, you are right.
I actually like the best of both words. A university town, that has a highly educated population and cultural amenities, but not the population, traffic and congestion associated with a large city. My number one criteria is actually natural beauty and climate. But I have to have culture too, which is why something like Hazard County, Georgia is totally off limits for me!

Where do you live? If this is a personal question you don't want to answer, I understand, just curious.
 
Back
Top